Mailing-List: contact dev-help@harmony.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of liyilei1979@gmail.com
 designates 72.14.220.157 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
        b=t5bax/wusJyHSED4IHJLLMFWVS2FowXrc3pcTsb+rbu6quffGHOUK3bu+07ZyPA1up4Krw7mNxBTdnre7SN9+aHW5hS0L0X2gNI/qL8z3H0jY62lWgK9u3yTwrMNu7Zod50wtasN2TXhkWncyFD8wAo61KpZYkdzaSzHUYm0Qxk=
Message-ID: <e66844de0802250113k797a4f95i1e731fd4831b2737@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:13:00 +0800
From: "Leo Li" <liyilei1979@gmail.com>
To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Subject: Re: [jdktools][JDWP]using portlib to support JDWP transport/agent?
In-Reply-To: <5c8e69f0802242256x4a907e93k3ee9b7ce8a966755@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_8481_26991812.1203930780365"
References: <5c8e69f0802242256x4a907e93k3ee9b7ce8a966755@mail.gmail.com>

------=_Part_8481_26991812.1203930780365
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On 2/25/08, Jimmy,Jing Lv <firepure@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
>     As I read the current JDWP transport/agent implementation I found
> that it has two folders, which means now we have two copies of code
> for windows and Linux. As we know, Harmony have a portlib which can
> facilitate the development to various of platforms, so I believe maybe
> we can use portlib to merge current 2  transport/agent into one?
>     IMHO, we will get following advantage if we use portlib in JDWP:
> 1. Harmony have various of customers on various of platform(e.g, I
> remember some MacOS users do works on Harmony), we can use portlib to
> support such users without any modification on code;
> 2. keep only one copy of code, omit unnecessary copies for various of
> platforms. In this case, if any bug/improvement occurs, we can work on
> only one codebase so that to facilitate the developement and avoid
> some platform-specific errors.
>
>     And the current implementation shows we may need to refactor
> network and memory APIs to with platform specific APIs, luckiely it
> seems no much work.
>     Any comments/suggestions?


  It will be better if the JDWP can be based on portlib.
  But I am not sure whether all the apis involved in these os related files
can found a direct counterpart in portlib.
  I am not sure whether there is an alterntive in portlib for the
ioctl/ioctlsocket, if I have not missed something. Maybe we shall expand the
portlib a little. :)

--
>
> Best Regards!
>
> Jimmy, Jing Lv
> China Software Development Lab, IBM
>


-- 
Good luck!

Leo Li

------=_Part_8481_26991812.1203930780365--